Robin Miller: Decision still stinks, no matter the motive

Something smells bad about last Tuesday's Vacaville City Council meeting.

As with every meeting, the mayor moved through the agenda, waiting for motions and seconds on each item, asking for any discussion and then calling for the vote.

Until, that is, it came time to nominate and select who would serve the next two-year term as vice mayor.

When staff explained that the process would follow Roberts Rules of Order and that the mayor should first call for nominations, he did so. Curtis Hunt nominated Dilenna Harris.

It was clear from the get-go that Harris would be the only nomination. After all, it is normally a post given to whoever got the most votes in the last election. That would be Ron Rowlett, but he just served as vice mayor, so it was Harris' turn at the post.

The mayor then spoke.

"I'm gonna make this a one-year term from now on because I would like everybody to have a chance," he said, as if it was within his power to unilaterally issue such a mandate. He then apologized for not returning a phone call to Harris but pronounced, "We've had a long discussion about this."

Really? Who is "we?" Was the mayor admitting to violating the Brown Act and meeting on a matter with other board members outside of a properly noticed meeting?

Or perhaps he was referring to December 2010, when the board appointed Rowlett to his two-year stint. At the time, Hardy suggested that, in the future, the council explore the idea of an annual rotation of the post. He never followed up on the idea, though, and he didn't try to unilaterally impose the change back then.

Harris was clearly irked, saying (rightly so) that it doesn't sit well when the change is made just as the only female on the council is up for a turn at the post.

The mayor's response was condescending, at best.

"I apologize that it upsets you," he said, the implication being that she wasn't "taking it like a man."

Insisting he didn't have an agenda against Harris, the mayor then said he just felt the change was needed and "you have to start somewhere."

Why?

Why does everyone have to have an opportunity to be vice mayor? And even if you buy that argument, there are currently two members who HAVE had the experience -- Hunt served in the post from 2008 to 2010 and Rowlett has held the post for the past two years -- and now Harris would get the experience. What is the mayor's concern? Surely with that much experience on the dais, there is no worry that there would be no one to run a meeting in his absence.

Was it a slap at women in leadership? Or could the mayor's real concern lie in a somewhat more political sphere?

He is up for re-election in two years. Last time, his challenger was none other than Harris. By limiting her to one year in the vice mayor post, he makes sure that, in 2014, should she choose to challenge him again, she will do so without the added benefit of bearing the title "vice mayor" in front of her name.

Someone needs to remind the mayor to take a page from his predecessor's book. You hang on to the mayor's post by being a good mayor, a leader who is visible throughout the community.

And there is a difference between leadership and bullying. When Harris smartly suggested that the mayor put off the change-of-term issue for a full discussion at a future meeting, and make it effective for the next vice mayor, Hardy rejected that idea and proclaimed he was going to "stay to it the way I see it."

Of course, that was until the city attorney pointed out that, in fairness, he might want to let the rest of the council vote on the idea.

Gee, how low have you sunk when the person who directs you to higher moral ground is the lawyer in the room?

So the council took an immediate vote on the proposed change (3-2, with Hunt and Harris dissenting). This is where Councilmen Rowlett and Mitch Mashburn get a bit of a slap for their self-serving votes with the mayor. Rowlett, should he choose to challenge for mayor, will now not have to face a "Vice Mayor" Harris opponent, and Mashburn, seemingly the next to "get the experience" as vice mayor, would run for re-election to the council with the title in front of his name.

So was it sexism? Political gaming? Just plain stupid? Take your pick, because under any of those scenarios, it still stinks.